Daniel Moore left two of his hairs in the crime scene. They were compared
microscopically and were found to be consistent (based on appearance under a
microscope) with Daniel Moore.  
One was found in a washcloth covered by Karen's
blood
, in the torture bed.  That hair, thought to be Moore's pubic hair, had been forcibly
removed, and had a skin tag attached.  Nuclear DNA study of that skin tag showed two
persons' DNA present in a mixture.  So the hair was washed, and a mitochondrial DNA
study was done on it, in effect, to separate the two DNA profiles in the mixture.

The mitochondrial DNA of this hair was matched to Daniel Wade Moore with a
certainty of 99.8 percent.  The mitochondrial DNA of the second hair, without skin
tag attached, also matched Daniel Wade Moore with a certainty of 99.8 percent.

The nuclear DNA mixture was found to contain Karen Tipton's DNA (her blood
washed off Moore's hair) with a certainty level of 2 billion--that's 2,000,000,000--to
one certainty.  And the same mixture matched Moore's genomic DNA
"contribution" with a certainty level of 7.5 million--that's 7,500,000--to one
.
Sheryl Marsh, in her coverage of the first trial, never mentioned these large numbers.  
Instead, her headline was that three different laboratories had three different results on
the hair,
implying there was some conflict in the data between the three independent
laboratories.  The three labs and their results were:

Microscopic Evaluation:  hair sample consistent with Moore's pubic hair.

Genomic DNA:  DNA mixture consistent with DWM plus Karen Tipton, with 2 billion
to one certainty it was Karen's DNA, and 7.5 million to one certainty it was Moore's
DNA composing the mixture.

Mitochondrial DNA from the washed hair:  mDNA consistent with DWM, with 500 to
one certainty.

Sheryl Marsh also reported during trial, November 13, 2002, that "results from the
private lab in New Orleans concluded Dr. David Tipton
could not be excluded as a
DNA donor on the hair."  As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite was true.  I
was
ruled out with 100% certainty as a donor on the bloody hair
--it was not my blood,
and it was not my hair, and it was proven with 100 percent certainty.  The expert
testified that
my DNA profile was unique--there were no matches to my DNA in the
control group data bank.  
In other words, my DNA didn't match the blood, didn't
match the hair, and didn't match any other known DNA sample
.
There can be no more credible, conclusive evidence of a rapist torturer murderer's
guilt than his own pubic hair left in the crime scene, covered in the victim's blood.

It's better than a dozen fingerprints, a confession, an eyewitness, and a videotape.

Any defense of Daniel Moore has to be centered on the DNA.  Anything else is a
side show.